Lawyer Running Office From Residence Can't Be Charged Electricity At Commercial Rates: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an advocate operating his office from his residential premises cannot be subjected to a commercial electricity tariff, observing that the legal profession does not amount to a 'commercial activity'. 

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed; 

"...although the office of Advocate cannot be said to be a commercial activity, provided, the same is situated in residential premises but where, the office of Advocate is situated in a commercial building, then he cannot seek exemption from payment of higher electricity charges at the commercial rate. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Advocate is liable to pay electricity dues at commercial rates for the office run at his residence, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent has committed material illegality while charging electricity charges at the commercial rate". 

The petitioner, an advocate, passed the petition challenging the order of December 31, 2020, whereby the electricity tariff for the office run in the residential premises of the advocate was declared to be a commercial activity and therefore he was liable to pay the electricity tariff at the commercial rates. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the office of the petitioner was being run in his residential premises, he was not liable to pay electricity charges at commercial rates, as the office of an advocate cannot be said to be a commercial activity when it is run from residential premises. 

The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the expression commerce or commercial involves the concept of trading activity, which includes any kind of activity. The general term for the aspect is buying and selling in a legal profession; there is no kind of buying and selling. Therefore, the legal profession is a professional activity that is carried out by personal skill and intelligence. 

The counsel for the respondents conteded that an advocate is admittedly a non-domestic activity and therefore would fall under the non-commercial activity. In such cases, the advocates would be charged at commercial rates. 

The court referred to the case of Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Narayan noted that the tariff entries were differentiated into two categories- domestic and commercial/non-domestic purposes. The Supreme Court, after examining the matter, held that the use was non-domestic and would fall in the category of commercial and non-domestic use when the office of an advocate was created for non-domestic use. 

The bench noted that the Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan (supra) did not deal with the issue of whether the advocate can be said to be carrying on a commercial activity and only examined the basis of use of premises. 

The bench held that although the office of an advocate cannot be said to be a commercial activity, provided the same is situated in residential premises. However, if the office of an advocate is situated in a commercial building, he cannot see an exemption from payment of higher electricity charges at commercial rates. 

Therefore, the bench concluded that an advocate is not liable to pay electricity dies at commercial rates for running his office from his residence. Thus, the respondents committed material illegality by charging a commercial rate of electricity. 

Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to raise bills of electricity des at the residential rate and disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Santosh Agrawal v MP Madhya Kshetra Vidhut Vitran, WP-1507-2021

Petitioner-in-Person: Advocate Santosh Agrawal 

For Respondents: Advocate Narottam Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order